 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Todd v. Kelley3/10/2000
nicipal corporations are "persons" subject to liability pursuant to § 1983. See Monell v. Department of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. at 689-90. A municipality may not, however, be held vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an injury inflicted by one of its officers or employees. Id.
" local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents. Instead, it is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983." Monell, 436 U.S. at 694.
The City maintains that the trial court properly entered a summary judgment in its favor because, it says, Todd presented no evidence indicating that a City "policy or custom" caused the alleged constitutional deprivations of which he complains.
In Monell, the Supreme Court indicated that a city establishes a policy or custom in two ways, namely: (1) by city lawmakers, or (2) "by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy." 435 U.S. at 694. In a series of decisions following Monell, the Court further defined the contours of the second kind of municipal liability based on a policy or custom. See City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (1988); Pembauer v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986); City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (1981); Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980). The Court decided that municipal liability may be based on a single illegal act by a city official with final policymaking authority over the subject matter because, in such a case, the policymaker's act can fairly be considered to represent official city policy. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 123; Pembauer, 475 U.S. at 480. In effect, the Court held, the official with such final policymaking authority is the City.
Whether an official possesses final policymaking authority is a question of state law, taking into account the applicable local ordinances or regulations. Jett v. Dallas Indep. School Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 737 (1989); Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 123; Pembauer, 475 U.S. at 483. In the present case, the City's liability turns on whether Mayor Kelley had final policymaking authority with respect to the dismissal of a city police officer.
In Praprotnik, the Supreme Court emphasized that, in determining whether a city official has final policymaking authority over a specific area of the city's business, the organic law of the city is critical. The Court stated that "it is self-evident that official policies can only be adopted by those legally charged with doing so," 485 U.S. at 125 n.2, explaining that it "would not be justified in assuming that municipal policymaking authority lies anywhere other than where the applicable law purports to put it." 485 U.S. at 126. In the present case, the record contains two documents relevant to the mayor's authority regarding the hiring and firing of employees.
The City of Millbrook has an employment handbook, entitled "Personnel Rules and Regulations -- City of Millbrook," (hereinafter referred to as "Personnel Rules") a copy of which is given to all employees. In addition, the Millbrook Police Department has a separate policy manual entitled "Departmental Manual of the Millbrook Police Department" (hereinafter referred to as "Police Manual"), which contains rules, regulations and "special orders" pertaining to police-department employees.
Chapter I, Section 4.H., of the Personnel Rules designates the mayor as the "hiring authority" for the City.
Special Order
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|